I agree with your response that these approaches will all cut into poverty; I think that we're ignoring the fact, though, that since the Johnson administration no president has even come close to seriously addressing these issues, and all social service budgets have been slashed dramatically beginning with Nixon. Most experts will agree that widespread benefits, increased access to higher education, and keeping students in high school will reduce poverty.

However a) there is absolutely no political support for reforms of this kind, though there may be popular support and b) even these reforms ignore one of the largest problems--the spacial mismatch that leaves people in poverty in areas where there are no jobs and poor schools. The institute's idea for housing vouchers for low-income families is a good one, but ignores the subtle racism that many families find in the real estate market. Families are often "steered" into poor or majority minority neighborhoods, or taken advantage of by subprime lenders, and thus would probably not find these vouchers as effective as they should be. Very few, if any, housing policies have successfully brought low-income families into middle-class neighborhoods. The housing desegregation attempts in Yonkers should be interesting to watch but, as they are small scale, will likely be of very limited effectiveness. Yonkers is a good city to exemplify some of the problems courts have had with ordering housing integration; the case has been in the courts for years, and has been fought vehemently from mainly white, middle-class families who do not want their property values decreasing when low-income black families come into their neighborhoods.

I laud the Center for American Progress for their recommendations; all are quality and, in fact, could reduce poverty. What needs to be addressed, though, is our government's persistent reluctance to do the things that need to be done to solve our nation's drastic poverty problem. Until we overcome this institutionalized classism and racism, by beating the "they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" idea and showing that there, in fact, is not equity in this country, poverty will remain a problem.

' KRYSTAL SERRANO'S KEYNOTE SPEECH | GED Programs

May 08, 2007
LOU DOBBS ON SIXTY MINUTES
By Profesor Martin Danenberg 'El Quijote del GED'

Lou Dobbs was on 60 Minutes last night espousing the issues that are important to his campaign to help the middle class. He was confronted about the fact that his news telecast is full of his own opinions (I chose telecast instead of show). I have long felt that newspapers and the media should give people a chance to read different opinions without knowing who expressed those ideas. We Americans are ant-Giuliani, anti-Hillary, anti-lots of people and we should have the opportunity to absorb ideas without the personality of the person being called into question. For example, if Hillary Clinton had a plan to save us four times the amount of money that we are saving in current tax refunds or savings, wouldn't we support her? This is what is wrong with Lou Dobbs. Someone is paying a lot of money to build him up larger than he is, but this happens in sports, Hollywood, and everywhere on the globe. If there is an abundance of one side of an issue in the news, it should be balanced by having someone else present the contrasting opinion and not Lou Dobbs.

Here is an idea for all Lou Dobbs fans and Lou Dobbs himself. Much of his reporting is wrong about important domestic issues. Once upon a time, doctors treated most ulcers with anti-acids medications. Now they treat most ulcers with antibiotics, because a doctor proved that all doctors were wrong. Once upon a time, medical science believed that the heart does not heal itself. Now those scientists know they were wrong. Much of what all reporters are reporting falls into the 'Once upon a time' level of fairy tale. We can tell you the savings to your car by changing your oil according to the manufacturer's standards and we can easily estimate the savings to the tax payer by educating people. The savings is in the billions, no hundreds of billions. Nobody has focused on the
GED issue across our large nation, an issue that has tens of millions who are in need. This is where we have gone wrong in the last 41 years since the GED became civilianized. This is where Lou Dobbs' reporting has gone wrong. Oh, his shows are factually correct, just as the doctors were correct in their time, but he is far off the mark.
My fellow Americans, you have been looking for relief with your taxes for many years, but I tell you now that the greatest relief within the tax structure that exists is to invest in most of the 40 million adults who do not have a GED and keep them away from jail and extremely high costs related to jail and social services. Lou Dobbs is just another 'bad' leader who is helping us waste our money. All of the social service agencies at the local, state, and national level have to be reorganized and you can throw in the services provided on Native American reservations too.

The American Teacher magazine in May 2007 pointed out that there will be 700.000 students who will drop out of school and cutting the dropout rate in half would save the American taxpayer $46 billion per year. The article goes on to cite strategies for keeping youth in school and says nothing or nada about GED. The savings mentioned is only the tip of the iceberg. We can effectively cut taxes by mobilizing those who are already costing us those billions and more toward the GED, better jobs, more justice for people, higher education, better families and churches, and a stronger nation that can compete better in the global economy that people tell us about. Make the GED test free for everyone in the United States (40 million adults need a GED) and can see the investment pay off in greatly reduced taxes. I do not think that the liberal Democrats and Republicans of the 1960's and 1970's really did what was needed to help the American people in a revolutionary manner, but the conservatives and Republicans who have dominated American politics since then, by their collective ignorance, have made matters worse. Even though there may have been some tax relief, it could have been much greater than it is. So now is the time for liberal and conservative and Democrat and Republican to unite in investing in everyone in America. Have you heard Lou Dobbs comment on the GED issue? I wrote an article about him and sent the article to his staff. Maybe we will find out if Lou Dobbs is 'spineless' like journalists he has criticized. He objects to 'fair and balanced' journalism and insists on 'objective' journalism. Maybe Dobbs, Sean Hannity Brit Hume, Keith Olbermann, and Bill O'Reilly should team up and present my information to the American people. The American people deserve better than those men are giving. Raising the minimum wage will help the poor, but it will only produce moderate gains. Cutting the dropout rate is much more significant, but it will help less than one percent of the people each year. I propose cutting the dropout rate in half (350,000), but helping 400,000 more adults from 21 years of age and up to obtain the GED. Will people learn about this on the Lou Dobbs show?

I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE TENS OF MILLIONS WHO WATCH THE LOU DOBBS SHOW WHO EITHER NEED THE GED OR WHOSE CHILDREN OR NEIGHBORS CHILDREN NEED THE GED AND LOU DOBBS IS NOT HELPING THEM. THERE ARE EVEN A MILLION OR MORE OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS, TOO, WHO MUST WONDER WHY THERE IS NO HELP FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND NEIGHBORS.

MARTIN N. DANENBERG
7 BLAZER DRIVE
ISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11749
631-348-1341
GEDHOTLINE@AOL.COM
www.ahorre.com/ged
www.geocities.com/gedhotline

Profesor Martin Danenberg May 8, 2007 09:08 PM | Noticias | GED Math

This posting by Maureen Lane is spot on. Basically, the underlying issue that constantly presents itself is bad policy. Bad policy unfortunately runs rampant throughout the United States and continues to do so. Although, "bad policy" may be born out of good intention, the fact is, sometimes good intentions are not enough. Today a myriad of policies are less effective because of the bad policy work behind them. These bad policies are then unfortunately left in place (i.e. 90% of the Pell Grant being awarded to college students with household incomes lower than $25,000). Obviously if 90% of the grants are given to students from $25,000 and lower incomes, a tremendous amount of deserving students are being left out in the cold. The United States undoubtedly promotes the importance and worth of education. Therefore, it should be logical to reflect on and consider how education needs to be affordable; hence, allowing for more accessibility which will then cause more individuals being educated. This is sadly one mere example has to how a worthwhile policy like the giving of Pell Grants could be much more effective and useful than what is now. It's unfortunate that these impractical policies like the Pell Grant example and the example about the Department of Health and Human services eliminating many of the social programs that have been proven to be essential to those in need, still are active policies. Hopefully, one day it will change. However, we all know the fight is never easy to change tradition and alter what is done and known in the world of policy. Keeping hope alive and continuing the fight for the implementation of good and practical policy is just what we have to do.